lid case study: the madera subdivision

LID Case Study: LID Case Study: The Madera SubdivisionThe Madera Subdivision

LID Case Study: LID Case Study: The Madera SubdivisionThe Madera Subdivision

Glenn Acomb, ASLAGlenn Acomb, ASLA Department of Landscape ArchitectureDepartment of Landscape Architecture Program for Resource Efficient CommunitiesProgram for Resource Efficient Communities

University of FloridaUniversity of Florida

Glenn Acomb, ASLAGlenn Acomb, ASLA Department of Landscape ArchitectureDepartment of Landscape Architecture Program for Resource Efficient CommunitiesProgram for Resource Efficient Communities

University of FloridaUniversity of Florida

April 5, 2007 April 5, 2007

M a r i o n C o u n t y L I D P r o g r a m

OverviewOverview OverviewOverview

IntroductionIntroduction Land Development Practices Land Development Practices LID PrinciplesLID Principles Triple Bottom LineTriple Bottom Line Case Study: Madera CommunityCase Study: Madera Community Q & AQ & A

IntroductionIntroduction Land Development Practices Land Development Practices LID PrinciplesLID Principles Triple Bottom LineTriple Bottom Line Case Study: Madera CommunityCase Study: Madera Community Q & AQ & A


““What is the use of a What is the use of a house if you haven’t got a house if you haven’t got a tolerable planet to put it tolerable planet to put it

on?”on?”

Henry David ThoreauHenry David Thoreau

““What is the use of a What is the use of a house if you haven’t got a house if you haven’t got a tolerable planet to put it tolerable planet to put it

on?”on?”

Henry David ThoreauHenry David Thoreau


The client says: “I’ve got this great piece of land…..it’s The client says: “I’ve got this great piece of land…..it’s incredible, high and dry, rolling land, majestic oaks, and on and incredible, high and dry, rolling land, majestic oaks, and on and on. Then he wants to apply a development program of on. Then he wants to apply a development program of extensive horizontal development, virtually destroying all that extensive horizontal development, virtually destroying all that which is seen as precious”which is seen as precious”

The typical development scenarioThe typical development scenario

The client says: “I’ve got this great piece of land…..it’s The client says: “I’ve got this great piece of land…..it’s incredible, high and dry, rolling land, majestic oaks, and on and incredible, high and dry, rolling land, majestic oaks, and on and on. Then he wants to apply a development program of on. Then he wants to apply a development program of extensive horizontal development, virtually destroying all that extensive horizontal development, virtually destroying all that which is seen as precious”which is seen as precious”

The typical development scenarioThe typical development scenario

Impacts typically created Impacts typically created in land developmentin land development

Impacts typically created Impacts typically created in land developmentin land development

ACTION IMPACTS

Land clearing Damages ecosystem and alters hydrology

Construction Further damages ecosystem; compacts soils, limiting infiltration

and damaging roots

Infrastructure Alters hydrologic system (and watershed)

Roads/automobile Affects air quality/threatens pedestrian safety and layout alters watershed

Building/lot Design affects energy and water

quantity and quality; resource efficiency via materials selection

ACTION IMPACTS

Land clearing Damages ecosystem and alters hydrology

Construction Further damages ecosystem; compacts soils, limiting infiltration

and damaging roots

Infrastructure Alters hydrologic system (and watershed)

Roads/automobile Affects air quality/threatens pedestrian safety and layout alters watershed

Building/lot Design affects energy and water

quantity and quality; resource efficiency via materials selection


Conventional practices have resulted in excessive resource consumption. We must now use approaches that favor resource conservation or renewalConventional practices have resulted in excessive resource consumption. We must now use approaches that favor resource conservation or renewal

LID “Big View”LID “Big View” LID “Big View”LID “Big View”

Do less harmDo less harm (esp. clearing & (esp. clearing & grading)grading) Respect hydrologic functionsRespect hydrologic functions Design a low impact landscapeDesign a low impact landscape

Do less harmDo less harm (esp. clearing & (esp. clearing & grading)grading) Respect hydrologic functionsRespect hydrologic functions Design a low impact landscapeDesign a low impact landscape


When you impact less = multiple benefitsWhen you impact less = multiple benefits

LID Design LID Design ConsiderationsConsiderations LID Design LID Design ConsiderationsConsiderations

Limit site disturbances; small Limit site disturbances; small footprintfootprint Mimic hydrologic functionMimic hydrologic function Limit impervious surfacesLimit impervious surfaces Utilize bioremediationUtilize bioremediation Use native plantsUse native plants Limit use of irrigation and Limit use of irrigation and processed waterprocessed water Limit use of fertilizers and Limit use of fertilizers and pesticidespesticides

Limit site disturbances; small Limit site disturbances; small footprintfootprint Mimic hydrologic functionMimic hydrologic function Limit impervious surfacesLimit impervious surfaces Utilize bioremediationUtilize bioremediation Use native plantsUse native plants Limit use of irrigation and Limit use of irrigation and processed waterprocessed water Limit use of fertilizers and Limit use of fertilizers and pesticidespesticides


Triple Bottom LineTriple Bottom Lineof savings in low impact developmentof savings in low impact development

Triple Bottom LineTriple Bottom Lineof savings in low impact developmentof savings in low impact development


Impact less Impact less spend less to spend less to prepprep site (less site (less clearing, grading & improvements)clearing, grading & improvements)

Mimic hydrologyMimic hydrology spend less in spend less in drainagedrainage, enhancing , enhancing infiltration and reducing pollutant infiltration and reducing pollutant loadload

Smart site design Smart site design use less use less waterwater and in and in maintainingmaintaining the site (less mowing and the site (less mowing and irrigation)irrigation)

Impact less Impact less spend less to spend less to prepprep site (less site (less clearing, grading & improvements)clearing, grading & improvements)

Mimic hydrologyMimic hydrology spend less in spend less in drainagedrainage, enhancing , enhancing infiltration and reducing pollutant infiltration and reducing pollutant loadload

Smart site design Smart site design use less use less waterwater and in and in maintainingmaintaining the site (less mowing and the site (less mowing and irrigation)irrigation)

Category Timing Client

Speculators (buy and flip) early developer

Infrastructure Developers early-middlebuilder

Homebuilders lateconsumer

Developer-Builders early-late consumer

Community Developers early-lateconsumer

(Master Developer)

The dilemma is that the reward of sustainable choices is to the end user/homebuyer yet many in development are out of the picture by that time.

Category Timing Client

Speculators (buy and flip) early developer

Infrastructure Developers early-middlebuilder

Homebuilders lateconsumer

Developer-Builders early-late consumer

Community Developers early-lateconsumer

(Master Developer)

The dilemma is that the reward of sustainable choices is to the end user/homebuyer yet many in development are out of the picture by that time.

Land Development PlayersLand Development Players Land Development PlayersLand Development Players


Cleared Site Scenario: Cleared Site Scenario: Landscape ImprovementsLandscape Improvements

Cleared Site Scenario: Cleared Site Scenario: Landscape ImprovementsLandscape Improvements


LandscapingLandscaping $2.00-$3.00$2.00-$3.00 TurfTurf $0.50/s.f.$0.50/s.f. MulchMulch $0.25/s.f.$0.25/s.f.

LandscapingLandscaping $2.00-$3.00$2.00-$3.00 TurfTurf $0.50/s.f.$0.50/s.f. MulchMulch $0.25/s.f.$0.25/s.f.

ItemItem Installed Cost Installed Cost

Cleared Site Scenario:Cleared Site Scenario:Water RequirementsWater Requirements

Cleared Site Scenario:Cleared Site Scenario:Water RequirementsWater Requirements


TurfTurf ½”½” Ornamental LandscapeOrnamental Landscape ¼” ¼” Native Landscape (or mix)Native Landscape (or mix) 1/10” or much 1/10” or much lessless

TurfTurf ½”½” Ornamental LandscapeOrnamental Landscape ¼” ¼” Native Landscape (or mix)Native Landscape (or mix) 1/10” or much 1/10” or much lessless

ItemItem Application Application

Case Study: Case Study: MaderaMadera Case Study: Case Study: MaderaMadera


A Model Subdivision of LID Design A Model Subdivision of LID Design Techniques Techniques A Model Subdivision of LID Design A Model Subdivision of LID Design Techniques Techniques

Case Study: Case Study: MaderaMadera

Case Study: Case Study: MaderaMadera

• 88 single-family homes on 44 acres (2.0 units/acre)

• Uses LID practices for resource efficiency

• Significant community open space and buffers

• Uncurbed roads and narrow right-of-way (50’)

• Restrictions to protect hardwood tree canopy and understory vegetation

• Proximity to UF and trail connections

• All homes are EnergyStar, WaterStar & resource efficient

• 88 single-family homes on 44 acres (2.0 units/acre)

• Uses LID practices for resource efficiency

• Significant community open space and buffers

• Uncurbed roads and narrow right-of-way (50’)

• Restrictions to protect hardwood tree canopy and understory vegetation

• Proximity to UF and trail connections

• All homes are EnergyStar, WaterStar & resource efficient


LocationLocation: Gainesville, Florida: Gainesville, FloridaSizeSize:: 44 acres 44 acresDeveloperDeveloper: GreenTrust, LLC (MD) : GreenTrust, LLC (MD) in in partnership with the partnership with the

University of University of Florida EnergyFlorida Energy Extension Extension OfficeOffice

LocationLocation: Gainesville, Florida: Gainesville, FloridaSizeSize:: 44 acres 44 acresDeveloperDeveloper: GreenTrust, LLC (MD) : GreenTrust, LLC (MD) in in partnership with the partnership with the

University of University of Florida EnergyFlorida Energy Extension Extension OfficeOffice

Sustainable Design Sustainable Design Techniques for the Techniques for the

CommunityCommunity

Sustainable Design Sustainable Design Techniques for the Techniques for the

CommunityCommunity

First to be approved via the City’s Green Development Code Reasonably compact houses (2,200-2,600 s.f.) Limited clearing of lots; must submit site plan with tree locations Native plants and very limited turf Connectivity to University (1.5 mile; trail connection) Goal of zero discharge of stormwater on lots Minimally-sized community detention basin Required use of EnergyStar and WaterStar appliances + Porches encouraged; front-loaded garages discouraged

First to be approved via the City’s Green Development Code Reasonably compact houses (2,200-2,600 s.f.) Limited clearing of lots; must submit site plan with tree locations Native plants and very limited turf Connectivity to University (1.5 mile; trail connection) Goal of zero discharge of stormwater on lots Minimally-sized community detention basin Required use of EnergyStar and WaterStar appliances + Porches encouraged; front-loaded garages discouraged


Design Techniques for the Design Techniques for the CommunityCommunity

Design Techniques for the Design Techniques for the CommunityCommunity

Use of Eco-Block in constructionUse of Eco-Block in constructionNarrow, uncurbed roadsNarrow, uncurbed roads

Stormwater detention basin, Phase I Stormwater detention basin, Phase I Limited clearing & contractor careLimited clearing & contractor care


Sustainable Design Sustainable Design Techniques for the Lot:Techniques for the Lot:Design Techniques of the ModelDesign Techniques of the Model

Sustainable Design Sustainable Design Techniques for the Lot:Techniques for the Lot:Design Techniques of the ModelDesign Techniques of the Model

Limited clearing of site Limited turf (35% of conventional) Limited irrigation (50%); low-volume design Limited impervious cover (encouraged) - Pervious pavers for driveway & sidewalk and shared driveway for some lots Zero discharge of stormwater – Capture of 1/3 roof stormwater to an infiltration tank; water garden in front yard natural area Use of natives and “Florida Friendly” plants; SJRWMD & Florida Yards & Neighborhood support Retained snags in rear yard buffer Model home displays an array of green products

Limited clearing of site Limited turf (35% of conventional) Limited irrigation (50%); low-volume design Limited impervious cover (encouraged) - Pervious pavers for driveway & sidewalk and shared driveway for some lots Zero discharge of stormwater – Capture of 1/3 roof stormwater to an infiltration tank; water garden in front yard natural area Use of natives and “Florida Friendly” plants; SJRWMD & Florida Yards & Neighborhood support Retained snags in rear yard buffer Model home displays an array of green products


Madera Model Center Landscape Madera Model Center Landscape DesignDesign

Madera Model Center Landscape Madera Model Center Landscape DesignDesign


Model Center

Shared Driveway (pervious pavement)

Existing VegetationExisting Vegetation

Existing Vegetation

Guest ParkingGuest Parking

Rain Garden

Garage

Entry

Tank

Road

Madera Model CenterMadera Model CenterMadera Model CenterMadera Model Center

Shared driveway and pavers Shared driveway and pavers Permeable pavers Permeable pavers

Native plant information Native plant information Model front yard Model front yard


Madera Site Madera Site DetailsDetails Madera Site Madera Site DetailsDetails Roof stormwater

infiltration tank under spare parking

Roof stormwater infiltration tank under spare parking

Eco-Stone pervious pavers in drivewayEco-Stone pervious pavers in driveway

Turf reinforcing in spare parking areasTurf reinforcing in spare parking areas


Madera Model CenterMadera Model CenterMadera Model CenterMadera Model Center

Front yard and Shumard Oak Front yard and Shumard Oak Rain Garden Rain Garden

Water conservation information Water conservation information Model side yard Model side yard


Madera Home 2003Madera Home 2003Madera Home 2003Madera Home 2003

No turf, front-loading garage; edge ornamental plantingsNo turf, front-loading garage; edge ornamental plantings



First 2-story; side-loading garage; no turfFirst 2-story; side-loading garage; no turf



Front-loading garage; very limited turf; extensive mulch; rain gardenFront-loading garage; very limited turf; extensive mulch; rain garden


Comparison with Comparison with Conventional:Conventional:

Site Design Site Design TechniquesTechniques for for the Lotthe Lot




Capital Costs: (2003/2004 dollars)

Task Sustainable Conventional Sustainable Savings

Clearing/Grading $1,612.00 $2,016.00 $400.00Utility Connection same same --0--

Natural Area Mulch $245.00 $90.00 ($155.00)Landscape Area Mulch $665.00 $406.00 ($259.00)Landscaping $6,485.00 $6,485.00 --0--Turf $720.00 $2,331.00 $1,611.00Irrigation $1,275.00 $1,500.00 $225.00

Driveway* $6,084.00 $7,584.00 varies with materialInfiltration Tank $1,032.00 --0-- ($1,032.00)Turf Reinforcing for Parking $845.00 --0-- ($845.00)SUB TOTAL $18,963.00 $20,412.00 *

* Note: The driveway, if not shared, would cause an advantage of $5,294 in favor of the Conventional. If so, only in the maintenance per annum can the costs be recovered (in less than 3 years). Also, there should also be an adjustment of capital cost of the project-wide stormwater savings of reduced pond size due to the zero discharge at the lot (approx. $1,000 saved per lot).

Capital Costs: (2003/2004 dollars)


Clearing/Grading $1,612.00 $2,016.00 $400.00Utility Connection same same --0--

Natural Area Mulch $245.00 $90.00 ($155.00)Landscape Area Mulch $665.00 $406.00 ($259.00)Landscaping $6,485.00 $6,485.00 --0--Turf $720.00 $2,331.00 $1,611.00Irrigation $1,275.00 $1,500.00 $225.00

Driveway* $6,084.00 $7,584.00 varies with materialInfiltration Tank $1,032.00 --0-- ($1,032.00)Turf Reinforcing for Parking $845.00 --0-- ($845.00)SUB TOTAL $18,963.00 $20,412.00 *

* Note: The driveway, if not shared, would cause an advantage of $5,294 in favor of the Conventional. If so, only in the maintenance per annum can the costs be recovered (in less than 3 years). Also, there should also be an adjustment of capital cost of the project-wide stormwater savings of reduced pond size due to the zero discharge at the lot (approx. $1,000 saved per lot).






Maintenance Costs: (annual costs, 2003/2004 dollars)


Landscape service (incl. mowing) $1,470.00 $3,150.00 $1,680.00Pesticide applications by service $200.00 (IPM) $300.00 $100.00Irrigation $71.84 $167.51 $115.67

[31,602 gal.] [74,120 gal.]

SUB TOTAL $1,721.84 $3,617.51 $1,895.67

Result: The approach to the maintenance considers 42 landscape maintenance visits to the residential site and 5 visits for application of pesticide. Also there would be increased maintenance of the project-wide stormwater

pond due to the greater depth of pond and greater accumulation of silt, debris and noxious plants in the bottom.

Maintenance Costs: (annual costs, 2003/2004 dollars)


Landscape service (incl. mowing) $1,470.00 $3,150.00 $1,680.00Pesticide applications by service $200.00 (IPM) $300.00 $100.00Irrigation $71.84 $167.51 $115.67

[31,602 gal.] [74,120 gal.]

SUB TOTAL $1,721.84 $3,617.51 $1,895.67

Result: The approach to the maintenance considers 42 landscape maintenance visits to the residential site and 5 visits for application of pesticide. Also there would be increased maintenance of the project-wide stormwater

pond due to the greater depth of pond and greater accumulation of silt, debris and noxious plants in the bottom.

Comparable used in figuresComparable used in figures Comparable used in figuresComparable used in figures


Comparable price point; subdivision across from project; comparable site characteristicsComparable price point; subdivision across from project; comparable site characteristics

Issues to addressIssues to addressIssues to addressIssues to address

Cleared sites – higher landscape costs for visual affect; natives growing in acceptance but are not as well known; return takes a bit longer

Problem soils – Low infiltration rates limit easy bioremediation; water harvesting is easier; water as an amenity

Smaller lots – Result in less space to remediate but surface runoff becomes critical

Turf – Limit amount due to high water consumption, pollutant runoff, cultural preferences; and human intervention, etc.

Cleared sites – higher landscape costs for visual affect; natives growing in acceptance but are not as well known; return takes a bit longer

Problem soils – Low infiltration rates limit easy bioremediation; water harvesting is easier; water as an amenity

Smaller lots – Result in less space to remediate but surface runoff becomes critical

Turf – Limit amount due to high water consumption, pollutant runoff, cultural preferences; and human intervention, etc.


Trends offering promiseTrends offering promiseTrends offering promiseTrends offering promise

Native plants – attractive natives are more known; designs that are attractive are more common

Water harvesting –roof capture/wet detention is possible; we can capture some of landscape need through harvesting; reuse is more available

Shared open space – Open space to convey surface water is possible if integrated into the community plan (e.g. Village Homes)

Turf – Alternatives are becoming availableIrrigation - Soil moisture sensing controllers are

becoming affordable

Native plants – attractive natives are more known; designs that are attractive are more common

Water harvesting –roof capture/wet detention is possible; we can capture some of landscape need through harvesting; reuse is more available

Shared open space – Open space to convey surface water is possible if integrated into the community plan (e.g. Village Homes)

Turf – Alternatives are becoming availableIrrigation - Soil moisture sensing controllers are

becoming affordable


Email ContactEmail ContactEmail ContactEmail Contact

[email protected]@ufl.edu


Web SitesWeb SitesWeb SitesWeb Sites

Program for Resource Efficient Communities: www.energy.ufl.edu

UF Department of Landscape Architecture:

www.dcp.ufl.edu/landscape

Program for Resource Efficient Communities: www.energy.ufl.edu

UF Department of Landscape Architecture:

www.dcp.ufl.edu/landscape

BibliographyBibliography BibliographyBibliography


Arendt, Randall. Arendt, Randall. Conservation Design for Conservation Design for SubdivisionsSubdivisions. Island . Island Press, 1996.Press, 1996.EPA. EPA. Our Built and Natural Environments: A Technical Our Built and Natural Environments: A Technical Review Review of the Interactions between Land Use, of the Interactions between Land Use, Transportation and Transportation and Environmental QualityEnvironmental Quality. 2001.. 2001.Florida Green Building Coalition. “Green Development Florida Green Building Coalition. “Green Development Design Design Standards.” FGBC, 2003.Standards.” FGBC, 2003.NAHB Research Center. NAHB Research Center. The Practice of Low Impact The Practice of Low Impact

DevelopmentDevelopment. Prepared for the U.S. Department . Prepared for the U.S. Department of of Housing & Urban Development, 2003Housing & Urban Development, 2003Rocky Mountain Institute. Green Development. John Rocky Mountain Institute. Green Development. John Wiley & Wiley & Sons, Sons, 1998.1998.Sustainable Industries Building Council. “Green Sustainable Industries Building Council. “Green Design Design Guidelines,” Guidelines,” SIBC, 2004.SIBC, 2004.Thompson, William and Sorvig, Kim. Thompson, William and Sorvig, Kim. Sustainable Sustainable Landscape Landscape ConstructionConstruction. Island . Island Press, 2000.Press, 2000.

Arendt, Randall. Arendt, Randall. Conservation Design for Conservation Design for SubdivisionsSubdivisions. Island . Island Press, 1996.Press, 1996.EPA. EPA. Our Built and Natural Environments: A Technical Our Built and Natural Environments: A Technical Review Review of the Interactions between Land Use, of the Interactions between Land Use, Transportation and Transportation and Environmental QualityEnvironmental Quality. 2001.. 2001.Florida Green Building Coalition. “Green Development Florida Green Building Coalition. “Green Development Design Design Standards.” FGBC, 2003.Standards.” FGBC, 2003.NAHB Research Center. NAHB Research Center. The Practice of Low Impact The Practice of Low Impact

DevelopmentDevelopment. Prepared for the U.S. Department . Prepared for the U.S. Department of of Housing & Urban Development, 2003Housing & Urban Development, 2003Rocky Mountain Institute. Green Development. John Rocky Mountain Institute. Green Development. John Wiley & Wiley & Sons, Sons, 1998.1998.Sustainable Industries Building Council. “Green Sustainable Industries Building Council. “Green Design Design Guidelines,” Guidelines,” SIBC, 2004.SIBC, 2004.Thompson, William and Sorvig, Kim. Thompson, William and Sorvig, Kim. Sustainable Sustainable Landscape Landscape ConstructionConstruction. Island . Island Press, 2000.Press, 2000.

lid case study: the madera subdivision

Documents